she and the professional educators year aircraft for the u.s. navy in 10 years ago made the transition to academia where the provided the outstanding opportunity for graduate school to have a specialty in a geographic part of the world where i specialize in middle eastern history. >>host: allen author "the politics and security of the >>guest: it is. the part of the world with united states has been involved in the iran-iraq war, desert shield, desert storm and operation in iraqi
freedom. it is a big topic and it needs to be discussed and investigated. >>host: where do you begin talking about u.s. involvement? >>guest: the u.s. involvement in the valleys goes much further back. we specifically look at the persian and gulf even though they sent some ships it is really world for to the united states and military get involved in a big way. surprisingly it does not have to do with the oil. world war ii marked the entry of the united states and its military to provide a secure pathway for supplies to the beleaguered soviet russian allies in their quest to defeat the germans. the persian gulf was one
pathway to bring e equipment through the back channel through persia through the mountains picked up by a the russians by tehran. and a much smaller percentage were involved with trading missions with there and and saudi arabia. but our 60,000 uniformed troops left the supply delivery business to rush up. those small numbers of the advisers stuck around for decades and that is what represented america pez influence as a prolonged role in the gulf. >>host: i always think of the british of involvement
in the middle east. how did they step back? >>guest: with regard to the gulf of brits arrived in the 1800 representing their quest to provide order on the flanks to the imperial interest of india. the southern coast of the gulf was called the piru coast. constantly feuding tribes would feud with one another spilling out of the seaboard approach to in the and resulted in the tax on india. so the british found themselves pooled into the gulf during the 1800's. not to colonize it to maintain order. they did with the relatively small amount of military
force. but you are right. up through the early 1870's was one of british hegemonic control over the persian golf. the aftermath of rope or two with the independence of india that the british brigade at -- began their retrenchment with the independence of india, the british lost the rationale for their military presence and their lost the money to pay for their presence there. >>host: did the americans step in because of the vacuum or because they were asked? >> the story of british control shepherding over the golf plays itself out over 20 years.
in 1968 the british announced the impending withdrawal in three years the americans initially said in very it explicit terms will not replace the british. the january 1968 announcement came during the same month as the ted offensive and there was no interest anywhere on capitol hill for any additional military commitments in asia. the british began three years of turnover and sent many emirates on a path to independence. so late 1971 when the british withdrew a series of newly independent states demerged but britain was
there to help quell the pressures that have brought the brits there during the previous century. and the absence of american empower washington had to iranians. the same two the united states military stuck around to help train. >>host: first, was there any resentment on the countries where they talk about to damage their affairs or monitor hours? was there a resentment? >> that is a complicated question. in a period of 1968 and the
british manage their withdrawal, many arab emirates announced they were happy to see the british leave. and did a guy is of the persian gulf they profess they did not want the united states to replace them. in private the era of small emirates along the coast were petrified. 150 years they had enjoyed a certain degree of british protection and those and their leaders made offers to both london and washington to offer financial incentives for the british
and americans to stay. they were afraid of the giant neighbor to the north north, i ran that since world war ii had been attempting to reassert the influence that they had enjoyed in previous centuries and fearful of their own neighbors. many arab states harbored border disputes some claim the territory some claiming the island's in between. so what was the year but was to come in the absence of the hegemonic british presence of those those are most often erred in private and nonpublic. >>host: when the u.s. stepped up what was our
success, failures? >>guest: with regard to the gulf 1971 when britain sale the way to set the country's three, for the first time in 150 years their voices no major western superpower to help quelled the disorder the brought the british to the region. america was not interested two-step then for the same security commitments and they were happy to allow the iranians to maintain some semblance even if it was not the exact interest of the united states but over the next two decades the west suffered a series of
catastrophic foreign policy setbacks that true the united states back to the gulf and by 1991 had assumed the same security commitments the british had been doing 150 years. those foreign policy setbacks with the supply disruption of the '70s, less than 24 months after the british departure in response immediately with the arab-israeli crisis, several arab states engaged in the oil production cutback and oil price increases. the united states quickly found it had very few military options to influence what was going on. during the period through
71, the small emirates offered incentives for the united states to come. the british were about ready to give up but the united states said no. flash forward 1973 and the united states no longer has access. so they take the initial step toward military commitments by beginning to protect the navy much further in the indian notion and began to look at the island base called the garcia and began to explore improvements to allow it to project without depending upon and with the host
nation support. also the u.s. reluctantly took the same british commitments came later with the fall of the shot and the iranian revolution and the west had to rely on saudi arabia in the aftermath of british withdraw because of america's involvement of vietnam. with the primary killer now gone united states had to figure out a way to project military powers they would no longer shepard after interest in the region. with the carter restoration the annunciation of the carter doctrine in this "state of the union" speech carter said in the attack on
western interest in the persian gulf represents the attack and u.s. vital interest and they will be prepared to use military force in defense of those interest. i paraphrase. but we did not have robust military to provide the opportunity. but it was the step the united states took to assume security responsibilities in the gulf. the next that the west took to assume those same duties came into the iran and iraq war beginning in 1980 continuing through the '80s. and through the reagan administration, drawing upon this standard that president carter had before word projected military force in the gulf of in the refi
gained of the kuwaiti tankers, putting the u.s. flag on them and using combatants to escort the ships through the gulf putting the u.s. military and harm's way. and finally, 1990 and 91 the united states engaged in desert shield and desert storm after this a dumb and asian of kuwait. after 1991 the united states never left and it has been maintaining order keep being the coal from devolving and insuring free-trade in and out through the gulf with the same missions the british had been doing in the 1800's and 1900's also appeared of american and and british hegemony separated
by a a 20 year chaotic time. >>host: professor jeffrey macris do see that hegemony continuing and shouldn't strategically? >> obviously those of the decisions administrations needs to make. from my training as a historian at will offer the incite that the golf is inherently unstable. political scientist call it anarchic the there is no one power strong enough to impose its willow over the other is putting it in the constant competition and
tension with one another. three regional powers and the smaller emirates down to the south better virtually defenseless in and of themselves. those smaller emirates earring urged independent only due to british hegemony when it was in the british interest to allow the states to leverage independent separate if not for the british presence to wait would have been consumed by iraq. bahrain would have been eight and up by the iranians.
-- eaten up by the iranians. there is an inherent tension in addition to the great tension from the southern side of the golf and the persian is in the iranians to the north. so there was the presence of the independent agent, other british could keep these tensions under control. to be sure many local actors do not welcome the british. but did provide for a modicum of stability. when it left, in my opinion, the underlying tensions are what cause many of the problems that drew the united states, against
its will back to assume the same security commitment. >> you began your book and in the foreword you think people. who were they? >>guest: i got the opportunity to get a phd of john hopkins and had the wonderful blessing to study with two world-renowned scholars a specialist in the middle east and dr. elliott:it specialist and strategic studies for military history. in my own academic work i tend straddle both of those worlds military history aspect of the superpower involvement those who touche
but the free main of the project how have london and washington shaped the history of the gulf and how have they been shaped? >>host: finally the difference between flying airplanes and teaching midshipmen? [laughter] >> high levels of chaos and uncertainty you in both. in the cockpit and also in a classroom you never know what they will ask. it is great to be at the naval academy working with some of america's finest young men and women. >>host: jeffrey macris "the politics and security of the gulf."
>>host: joining us is senator rand paul. his second book, government believes. who wore they? >>guest: of 41 different agencies that carry firearms. you say i don't mind the police were the fbi but the department of bagger culture has us what -- s.w.a.t. team. fish and wildlife as the s.w.a.t. team they raided gibson guitar with guns drawn to take all of the computer equipment and the would and did not look the know what they were accused
of over one year but then finally when they did was to break a foreign regulation a lot and nds and petallides in the u.s.. those of the story as we write about. >>host: how come we have not heard about that before? case of john and judy selling bunny is in missouri and find $90,000 for having the wrong permit. the government said you can pay $90,000 but if you don't within 30 days you will owe less 3.$1 million. this is the stuff you're government does to bully people and it needs to stop. also confiscating people's land to say you cannot build on it because it is a wetland even there is no water on the land. >>host: as a senator what can you do to change policy?
>>guest: we have now constructive legislation to fix them. with the wetland we say you cannot discharge pollutants into navigable waters. but your backyard is not navigable. so we've tried to redefine the clean water act we not putting people in prison for putting clean dart taster in their backyard. woman 84 months in federal prison for putting clean dirt on her own land. >>host: when you talk to your colleagues what do you hear? >> some are horrified. eight of them who co-sponsored the bill the other 92 i am not sure what they think about. when you tell the american people how the government is harassing and imprisoning people to sell raw milk go
to the homage farmer they have been arrested and threatened with jail because they sell the milk to their neighbors. >>host: will you be taking these issues nationwide? >> we will talk about it and a time somebody list since. government is out of control and run amok and it has become of bully. >>host: november 2012 what did those elections clarify? >>guest: lot that we need to do something to grow as as a party and are in danger of becoming a dinosaur if we cannot figure out what they want in doing gland and around the great lakes purposely cannot figure out what they want we will not win as a party. i think they are conservative and we should balance the budget but they don't think we should be at
war all the time. say one more tolerance to put people in prison for possession of marijuana comment to see more local judges, less present time. i am not encouraging people to use marijuana but don't think they should be in jail for it either. >>host: we did a long interview on your first book you can see that on book tv's.org. the premise? >> the tea party goes to washington and. with the tea party movement probably the biggest happen in 40 years. hundreds of thousands of people were showing up and it transformed the way we think that people began to question the law that was passed as obamacare